State of M.P. & Anr Vs. Smt Abha Sethi
EmailAppeal: (Civil appeal No 4372 of 1984 ETC ETC)
With C.A. No. 4790/84, 4594/84,4595/84,4596/84
(From the judgement and order dated 23.2.1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. P. No. 570
of 1981)
With C.A. No. 4790/84, 4594/84,4595/84,4596/84
(From the judgement and order dated 23.2.1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. P. No. 570
of 1981)
Petitioner: State of M.P. & Anr
Respondent: Smt Abha Sethi
Apeal: (Civil appeal No 4372 of 1984 ETC ETC)
With C.A. No. 4790/84, 4594/84,4595/84,4596/84
(From the judgement and order dated 23.2.1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. P. No. 570
of 1981)
With C.A. No. 4790/84, 4594/84,4595/84,4596/84
(From the judgement and order dated 23.2.1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. P. No. 570
of 1981)
Judges: S.P. Bharucha, B.N.Kirpal, S. Rajendra Babu, S.S. Mohammed Quadri & M.B. Shah,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 28, 1999
Appearances:
S.K. Agnihotri, Mrs Madhur Dadlani, Sapam Biswajit Mistel Advs for the appellants. Sarwa Mitter, adv for M\s Mitter & Mitter Co., Advs for petitioner in W.P. No. 12221/ 85 S.K.Gambhir and R.B. Misra, Advs (NP) for the respondent.
Head Note:
ENTERTAINMENT TAX
M.P. Entertainment Duty And Advertisement Tax act, 1936
Payment made by customer by inserting coin at video game parlour. Held that it was nonetheless, a fee for entertainment. Geetha Enterprise’s case ( 1983 (3) SCR 812 followed.
(para 2,4)
M.P. Entertainment Duty And Advertisement Tax act, 1936
Payment made by customer by inserting coin at video game parlour. Held that it was nonetheless, a fee for entertainment. Geetha Enterprise’s case ( 1983 (3) SCR 812 followed.
(para 2,4)
Cases Reffered:
1 Standard Games & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors JT 1996 (5) SC 624.
2 Geetha Enterprises & Ors. v. State of U.P. 1983 (3) SCR & Ors. 812
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The state of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal against orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that followed its earlier judgement in W. P. No. 567/81 , Harrish Wilson v. state of M.P. and held that video games located in video parlours were not liable to entertainment tax under the M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act , 1936, on the ground that what entertains a person in the video parlour is his own performance and not the exhibition, performance , amusement, game or any sport offered by the proprietor of the video parlour. The payment that was made was only to provide the payer with tools for deriving pleasure from his own performance and that payment did not amount to a payment for admission to an entertainment.
2. The judgement in the case of Harrish Wilson was noticed by this Court in the case of Geetha enterprises & Ors. v. state of U.P. & Ors. ( 1983 (3) SCR 812) and it was held that important aspects had been completely overlooked. The pivotal conclusions reached in that judgement did not appeal to this Court. The mere fact that the payment was not made at the time of entering the video parlour was irrelevant; payment made at a later stage by inserting the coin was nonetheless for being admitted to a place of entertainment. The fee being charged in a different manner at a different stage was in any case for providing entertainment. The decision in Harrish Wilson’s case was, therefore , in terms disapproved of.
3. When the special leave petition out of which these appeals arise came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court, on 5th November , 1984 , observed that the view taken in the case of Geetha Enterprises required reconsideration.
4. The case of Geetha Enterprises has being followed by this Court in Standard Games & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (JT 1996 (5) SC 624). In any event we have read the judgement in the case of Geetha Enterprises and are in agreement therewith. No reconsideration thereof is, in our view , required.
5. Following the judgement in the case of Geetha Enterprises, the appeals are allowed and the orders under appeal are set aside. The writ petitions upon which those orders were passed are dismissed. No order as to costs.
1. The state of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal against orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that followed its earlier judgement in W. P. No. 567/81 , Harrish Wilson v. state of M.P. and held that video games located in video parlours were not liable to entertainment tax under the M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act , 1936, on the ground that what entertains a person in the video parlour is his own performance and not the exhibition, performance , amusement, game or any sport offered by the proprietor of the video parlour. The payment that was made was only to provide the payer with tools for deriving pleasure from his own performance and that payment did not amount to a payment for admission to an entertainment.
2. The judgement in the case of Harrish Wilson was noticed by this Court in the case of Geetha enterprises & Ors. v. state of U.P. & Ors. ( 1983 (3) SCR 812) and it was held that important aspects had been completely overlooked. The pivotal conclusions reached in that judgement did not appeal to this Court. The mere fact that the payment was not made at the time of entering the video parlour was irrelevant; payment made at a later stage by inserting the coin was nonetheless for being admitted to a place of entertainment. The fee being charged in a different manner at a different stage was in any case for providing entertainment. The decision in Harrish Wilson’s case was, therefore , in terms disapproved of.
3. When the special leave petition out of which these appeals arise came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court, on 5th November , 1984 , observed that the view taken in the case of Geetha Enterprises required reconsideration.
4. The case of Geetha Enterprises has being followed by this Court in Standard Games & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (JT 1996 (5) SC 624). In any event we have read the judgement in the case of Geetha Enterprises and are in agreement therewith. No reconsideration thereof is, in our view , required.
5. Following the judgement in the case of Geetha Enterprises, the appeals are allowed and the orders under appeal are set aside. The writ petitions upon which those orders were passed are dismissed. No order as to costs.
